Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Left: An internet image of a Singapore Navy team carrying SAR-21 rifles

by Ajai Shukla

Business Standard

26th May 2009

Exactly six months ago, on what has come to be known as 26/11, Indian security men in Mumbai, clutching antiquated rifles, fled shamefully before a handful of well-armed terrorists. Now, documents available with Business Standard reveal that if a similar attack were to take place today, much the same might happen. The reason: infighting within the government has scuttled the Ministry of Home Affairs’ bid to equip its police with modern weaponry.

For six years, India’s central police organisations (CPOs), which include the CRPF, the BSF and the CISF, have urged the home ministry to equip them with carbines to replace their cumbersome military-use rifles. CPO jawans presently carry the INSAS, and even World War II era .303 rifles, which are no match for the terrorists’ AK-47 and AK-56 assault rifles. Carbines, in contrast, are lighter, smaller, and can spray bullets at a target, better equipping a policeman for encounters in confined and built-up areas.

Just five days before 26/11 — in a telling coincidence — NSG commandos completed trials on two carbines offered to the home ministry by the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB). One of them, the OFB-developed AMOGH, was rejected outright. The other carbine, the SAR-21 MMS, jointly offered by the OFB and Singapore Technologies Kinetic (STK), was found suitable by the NSG for India’s needs.

The stage seemed set for an immediate purchase. The home ministry's five-year modernisation plan urgently sought 47,286 carbines for the CPOs by March 2008. This deadline was extended till March 2010 because OFB-developed carbines failed repeatedly to pass user trials.

The OFB was ready to deliver the first carbines within six months of an order, and complete delivery of all 47,286 carbines by February 2011. STK pledged to transfer technology in full, thereby allowing the OFB’s new factory (coming up at Korwar in the Amethi parliamentary constituency) to manufacture lakhs of carbines for the CPOs in subsequent five-year plans.

The army, too, is separately purchasing several lakhs of carbines.

Had the home ministry placed the order, the first OFB-STK carbines would have been entering service now. Instead, the process was derailed by a mysterious red herring. The home ministry informed the OFB (in letter No IV-13018/8/2009-Prov.II dated 17 March 2009) that a foreign vendor, Israel Military Industries (IMI), had written in, alleging bias in the carbine procurement.

As if on cue, controversial Samajwadi Party MP Hari Kewal Prasad (in 2007, he had alleged being offered Rs 10,000 to vote for Pratibha Patil in the presidential election) wrote to the home minister, making the same argument in very similar words.

It quickly became evident that this was an attempt to scuttle the carbine purchase. On March 26, IMI’s Marketing Director to India, Bran Sela, wrote to the home minister, clarifying that the letter had not been sent by IMI. The letter also pointed out that IMI was no longer producing small arms like carbines; its small arms division had been sold to a private Israeli company, Israeli Weapons Industries (IWI).

IWI’s stakes in the carbine deal quickly became obvious. In early March, just days after the fake letter, government-owned Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) threw its hat in the ring, informing the ministry of defence that it would import, market and manufacture IWI weaponry for the Indian market. BEML’s Chairman and Managing Director V R S Natarajan wrote personally to the home ministry (letter No CMD/606/1923 dated 20th April 09) asking for the tendering to begin, so that the BEML-IWI carbine could be offered.

Exactly six months after 26/11, the purchase of carbines is at a standstill, while two defence ministry production units — the OFB and BEML — compete for the order. And defence ministry sources said any decision on this issue is most unlikely after the arrest on May 19 of the recently-retired OFB Chairman Sudipta Ghosh on corruption charges.

is Micro Tavor ,the one being offered by IWI..last heard it was being produced under license by OFB...or is it only on offer for the army tender?on a serious note, NSG opting for SAR 21 sucks like anything...they should have gone for MP7A1..or the Zittara...maybe the babus didn't allow it.

WTF?Why does everything in India moves at such snail's pace and gets bogged down in controversy? This is really a pathetic way of modernizing our forces. When speed is of essence we waste precious time in squabbling amongst ourselves. Get ready for another 26/11 and hope you are not in the line of fire or anywhere close.

All you supporters and proponents of the Zitara, let me clarify that I am not qualified to come to any conclusions about whether a weapon is a success or a failure.

The Zitara was pronounced unsuitable for procurement for the Indian Central Police Organisations by a board of officers, including officers from the NSG, that conducted detailed firing trials. Their trials report was forwarded to the MHA on 10th October 2006.

Khalid, you may well be a "passionate supporter and user" of the Zitara because it helps you to shoot at whoever it is that you shoot at. But i also know a couple of of supari (contract) assassins in Lucknow who swear that nothing beats a country-made pipe-pistol from Gorakhpur. Whatever floats your boat...

As far as the MHA is concerned, a set of specifications have been laid down and if a carbine doesn't meet them, the Trial Team has no choice but to reject it.

Anonymous, the specifications laid down by MHA don't include multiple ammunition use. So the Zitara gets no brownie points for that.

its utter crap to say that micro tavor is a failure . why on earth then have the SFF being using them for the past 3 yrs? why did OFB spend so much of the taxpayer's money to build infrastructure to produce the weapon under the zittara brand in the factory? WHY O WHY ? only to get it rejected by some babus whims and fancies? aka the helicopter deal fiasco ?

SAR-21 and Tavor are basically the same . SAR-21 was the result when singapore went their way ,from the Israeli project. Also SAR-21 is costlier than TAR-21. moreover TAR-21 has been extensively tested in Indian conditions and the shortcomings (like jamming and dust -susceptibility) pointed out and they have been rectified. Moreover they are in production at OFB shops.

Dear Mr Shukla, Its great to hear from you again after a long time. Its about time that we focused on upgrading individual soldier capabilities rather than just pushing money on piling up hardware. New rifles/carbines for police and home department is very much required, but I sure hope that they get enough weapons familiarization along with the new weapons they receive. As the old saying goes "practice makes a man perfect". Just a quick comment on your report, I hear a lot of analysts talk about a gun called the AK-56. In reality what is usually referred to as AK-56 is the Type 56 assault rifle built by Norinco (I think). The folding stock version of the rifle is called the Type 56-1. On the other hand, the folding stock version of the AK-47 is called the AKS-47. Thank you for reading this incase you do and im really sorry for the messy explanation. Just wanted to put in a small comment on a mistake commonly made no offense whatsoever. Warm Regards,Anand

Steyer was willing to let India manufacture the Steyer AUG rifle but they opted for INSAS. Guess all the talk about self sufficiency is wearing thin, almost all the projects did not come out well (Arjun, Tejas)etc-even the INSAS rifle is far costlier than its counterparts, the best would be to go for the best system over the counter. Government factories do not care about quality, all they do is to sit tight and do nothing. My suggestion would be to get AK47 or some modern version of the AK from Russia, we will save a lot of money and time

The Army uses the INSAS in counter insurgency environment. It is a good weapon which is light and very accurate. The three round controlled burst option helps in conserving ammunition. The quality of alloy used in the barrel needs some attention but quality control can sort that out. Why cant the CPOs do with the INSAS in Mumbai when the Army can manage with it in the Valley? Do they need an imported weapon to look after airports and provide security during elections? I think the INSAS is good enough. Maybe we need to ask the genius who gave the specifications to MHA in the first place.

INSAS is a rifle, we need a compact carbine for special forces and police to fight in tight urban combat situations.Counter insurgency in the valley is usually limited to mountains and jungles where rifle is the appropriate weapon. Within towns the army prefers AKs and antiquated Sten guns. Efforts to develop an INSAS carbine have failed.

There seem to be a few misperceptions going around, so let me issue a couple of clarifications.

The CPOs don't want an assault rifle... which is what the AK-47 class of weapons are. They want a carbine, and my article explains the difference between the two. So the AK or the INSAS are not options for them.

The Micro Tavor, is different from the Tavor assault rifle, which is used by our security forces. To my understanding, the Tavor rifle that the SF bought was scaled down into the Micro Tavor... aka the Zitara. That weapon has not passed any of the tests which it has undergone.

Nor has the OFB spent a single paise on infrastructure to produce any of the weapons that my article discusses. They can only do that after an order is placed and they have already said that they need six months to put the infrastructure in place.

Heckler & Koch has, so far at least, refused to part with the technology to OFB. So they were ruled out of contention. However, they have been issued an RFP for the army's order of carbines.

(Khalid, if there are some clarifications that you don't want to discuss on an open forum, email me at broadswordbs@gmail.com and I can issue you some clarifications that i cannot on an open forum!)

1. Are there offset rules for small arms purchase as well or is it only for aircrafts?2. PArticipation of private industry (ex - tata, mahindra, L&T) will certainly speed up the process and improve adherence to schedules and budget. Are you aware of any proposal to involve private industry in the small arms development and manufacture process?3. Crisis situation like 26/11 provoke knee jerk responses from everyone especially people in power. You will see a pattern here of government suddenly opening up the purse strings and the agencies (police in this case) grabbing at the last penny. However, seems like the original process for selecting the SAR itself wasnt transparent. This is what the hindu says - "The M107 SAR, a lethal weapon designed to penetrate armour and bullet-proof glass, has been selected despite the risk of collateral damage and the fact that the Mumbai Police have no range on which personnel could be trained in its use." Is it possible that the entire process needs to revisited?4. Why does Mumbai police need Force-One and what will be its responsibilities vis-a-vis NSG, seen as there will be a NSG hub in Mumbai? A force-one of 350 commandoes seems like an awful lot of duplication in terms of men and equipment. Why this knee jerk reaction to a problem for which a solution (NSG) already exists? I can understand why Karnataka created their own force since they were denied a NSG base in Bangalore.

6 months after 26/11 India has agreed to talk with Pakistan. 6 months after India has decided not to do anything against the perpetrators of the crime. India has taken the Paki ak-47 up their ass. This is nothing?

A sorry tale of Indian incompetence and it also demonstrates the inability of the majority Indian press (save for Ajai) to verify official statements issued by officialdom.

"There has been no official advisory from the Indian authority on the temporary suspension of business activities in relation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation of former director-general of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB)," the company told Aerospace DAILY.

"We do not have any Joint Venture with OFB and have not signed any agreement with OFB," said Gaius Ho, spokesman for ST Kinetics.

ST Kinetics says OFB approached it when the Ministry of Home Affairs was looking for a modern rifle, as the OFB's rifles had failed during internal trials. "ST Kinetics' SAR21 was presented for trials and evaluation. The discussion was for ST Kinetics to license its intellectual property to OFB if the MHA should decide to select the SAR21 and award a contract. There has been no decision to date," Ho explained.

Following the ban, "ST Kinetics has since approached the authority for clarifications and presented to the ministry a list of all our business activities in India. While awaiting a response from the ministry, we have offered all cooperation to assist with any investigation as appropriate and hope that the ministry will quickly review the matter and clear ST Kinetics' reputation," Ho said.

"We are perturbed by the change of events and feel strongly that we have not been fairly treated as a legitimate bidder who is committed to helping the Indian MoD with its modernization efforts," Ho added. "ST Kinetics is definitely a victim of the whole situation."

Considering the 'fluting' visible on the composite that covers the barrel, the security men in the photo at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Steady-strides-on-security-but-Maoist-pinpricks-hurt/articleshow/4947913.cms seem to be carrying a version of the SAR-21, rather than the TAR-21.

Old tread I know, but I just had to clarify. IMI and STK have a really close relationship, they share research and tech, hence the similarities with the TAR-21 and the SAR-21, same basic gun with slightly different frames.

So when someone who says he's IMI writes in to stab STK in the back, I'm going to have to really question if he's IMI. Honestly though, I suspect it's IWI's Indian supplier who did it. IWI really doesn't want to earn the ire of IMI and STK.